Dear editor: To contain the spread of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), some Brazilian municipalities have implemented strategic checkpoints called sanitary barriers.1,2 This action was realized by the prefecture of Belo Horizonte with objectives of detect suspected cases which had not sought for medical care; promote health education on preventive measures and self-identification of Covid-19 red flags; timely refer suspected cases to healthcare centers for assessment and stratification; provide strategic data for health surveillance and to follow cases of epidemiological or assistance interest.3,4
Through a cross-sectional study carried out in Belo Horizonte from June 18th and July 18th 2020, we aim to estimate the prevalence of people that have gone to hospital after being categorized as suspected cases in “sanitary barriers” in Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Referrals to telemonitoring were made by prefecture personnel and voluntary medical students in eighteen sanitary barriers established in the city. Those units approached cases by convenience sampling and used the following criteria: people who reported influenza-like illness; people who had fever detected at the barrier or who had contact with suspected or confirmed Covid-19.
Through self-report, variables related to sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, education, municipality of residence), clinical status (symptoms, onset of symptoms, evolution of symptoms, previous contact, comorbidities) and behavioral actions towards Covid-19 (social distance, hand hygiene and use of personal safety equipment) were collected. The consultation in a health service after the sanitary barrier instructions was the variable of interest in this study.
Of the 690 individuals, 54.7% had between 20 to 39 years and 67.3% were male. The prevalence of 61.7% for effective referral to health care centers as the main outcome, whereas 38.2% did not seek medical assistance as oriented. Among these, 84% were asymptomatic and 30% confirmed previous exposure with confirmed or suspected cases of Covid-19 (table I).
Variables |
Total |
Health care service referral |
|||||
Effective |
Non-effective |
||||||
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
p |
|
Socialdemographics characteristics |
|||||||
Age (years) (n=690) |
0.676 |
||||||
Child or adolescent (0-19) |
32 |
4.64 |
22 |
68.75 |
10 |
31.25 |
|
Young adult (20-39) |
378 |
54.78 |
237 |
62.70 |
141 |
37.30 |
|
Middle age (40-59) |
250 |
36.23 |
148 |
59.20 |
102 |
40.80 |
|
Elder (≥ 60) |
30 |
4.35 |
19 |
63.33 |
11 |
36.67 |
|
Sex (n=690) |
0.351 |
||||||
Male |
465 |
67.39 |
281 |
60.43 |
184 |
39.57 |
|
Female |
225 |
32.61 |
145 |
64.44 |
80 |
35.56 |
|
Education (n=674) |
0.134 |
||||||
Elementary school |
136 |
20.18 |
74 |
54.41 |
62 |
45.59 |
|
High school |
353 |
52.37 |
217 |
61.47 |
136 |
38.53 |
|
Faculty |
185 |
27.45 |
121 |
65.41 |
64 |
34.59 |
|
City (n=681) |
0.013 |
||||||
Belo Horizonte |
389 |
57.12 |
222 |
57.07 |
167 |
42.93 |
|
Other |
292 |
42.88 |
195 |
66.78 |
97 |
33.22 |
|
Evaluation analysis (n=690) |
0.912 |
||||||
June 18th and July 07th |
491 |
71.16 |
302 |
61.51 |
189 |
38.49 |
|
July 08th and July 18th |
199 |
28.84 |
124 |
62.31 |
75 |
37.69 |
|
Clinical characteristics – Covid-19 | |||||||
Symptoms (n=681) |
<0.001 |
||||||
Yes |
607 |
89.13 |
404 |
66.56 |
203 |
33.44 |
|
No |
74 |
10.87 |
19 |
25.68 |
55 |
74.32 |
|
Flu-like syndrome (n=607) |
0.001 |
||||||
Yes, all of symptoms |
29 |
4.78 |
26 |
89.66 |
3 |
10.34 |
|
Yes, but not all symptoms |
427 |
70.35 |
293 |
68.62 |
134 |
31.38 |
|
No |
151 |
24.88 |
85 |
56.29 |
66 |
43.71 |
|
Symptoms’ description (n=607) | |||||||
Anosmia ou dysgeusia |
0.002 |
||||||
Yes |
136 |
22.41 |
106 |
77.94 |
30 |
22.06 |
|
No |
471 |
77.59 |
298 |
63.27 |
173 |
36.73 |
|
Dyspneia |
0.003 |
||||||
Yes |
82 |
13.51 |
67 |
81.71 |
15 |
18.29 |
|
No |
525 |
86.49 |
337 |
64.19 |
188 |
35.81 |
|
Sore throat |
0.477 |
||||||
Yes |
165 |
27.18 |
114 |
69.09 |
51 |
30.91 |
|
No |
442 |
72.82 |
290 |
65.61 |
152 |
34.39 |
|
Fever |
<0.001 |
||||||
Yes |
224 |
36.90 |
179 |
79.91 |
45 |
20.09 |
|
No |
383 |
63.10 |
225 |
58.75 |
158 |
41.25 |
|
Dry or productive cough |
0.047 |
||||||
Yes |
266 |
43.82 |
189 |
71.05 |
77 |
28.95 |
|
No |
341 |
56.18 |
215 |
63.05 |
126 |
36.95 |
|
Symptoms onset (days) (n=554) |
0.302 |
||||||
0-7 |
485 |
87.55 |
331 |
68.25 |
154 |
31.75 |
|
8-14 |
41 |
7.40 |
28 |
68.29 |
13 |
31.71 |
|
≥ 15 |
28 |
5.05 |
23 |
82.14 |
5 |
17.86 |
|
Symptoms’ outcome (n=601) |
0.140 |
||||||
Recovery |
515 |
85.69 |
335 |
65.05 |
180 |
34.95 |
|
Maintenance |
66 |
10.98 |
51 |
77.27 |
15 |
22.73 |
|
Worsening |
20 |
3.33 |
13 |
65.00 |
7 |
35.00 |
|
Comorbidity (n=603) |
0.146 |
||||||
Yes |
159 |
26.37 |
107 |
67.30 |
52 |
32.70 |
|
No |
444 |
73.63 |
268 |
60.36 |
176 |
39.64 |
|
Types of comorbidity (n=159) | |||||||
Respiratory diseases |
0.268 |
||||||
Yes |
57 |
35.85 |
42 |
73.68 |
15 |
26.32 |
|
No |
102 |
64.15 |
65 |
63.73 |
37 |
36.27 |
|
Cardiovascular diseases |
0.746 |
||||||
Yes |
72 |
45.28 |
47 |
65.28 |
25 |
34.72 |
|
No |
87 |
54.72 |
60 |
68.97 |
27 |
31.03 |
|
Endocrine disorders |
0.912 |
||||||
Yes |
36 |
22.64 |
25 |
69.44 |
11 |
30.56 |
|
No |
123 |
77.36 |
82 |
66.67 |
41 |
33.33 |
|
Prevention measures (n=567) |
0.401 |
||||||
Yes |
457 |
80.60 |
276 |
60.39 |
181 |
39.61 |
|
Partially or none |
110 |
19.40 |
61 |
55.45 |
49 |
44.55 |
|
Previous exposure (n=609) |
0.937 |
||||||
Known case |
178 |
29.23 |
112 |
62.92 |
66 |
37.08 |
|
Possible or unknown |
431 |
70.77 |
268 |
62.18 |
163 |
37.82 |
|
Covid-19 testing (n=695) |
<0.001 |
||||||
Yes |
206 |
29.64 |
174 |
84.47 |
32 |
15.53 |
|
No |
469 |
67.48 |
243 |
51.81 |
226 |
48.19 |
|
Final classification (n=681) |
<0.001 |
||||||
Doesn’t meet the criteria |
206 |
30.25 |
95 |
46.12 |
111 |
53.88 |
|
Confirmed |
68 |
9.99 |
64 |
94.12 |
4 |
5.88 |
|
Suspected |
260 |
38.18 |
169 |
65.00 |
91 |
35.00 |
|
Discarted |
104 |
15.27 |
72 |
69.23 |
32 |
30.77 |
|
Assymptomatic |
25 |
3.67 |
4 |
16.00 |
21 |
84.00 |
|
Other confirmed diagnosis |
18 |
2.64 |
18 |
100.00 |
0 |
0.00 |
In conclusion, there was a high prevalence of demand for health after guidance on health barriers, which demonstrates the importance of this measure as an educative practice in controlling the transmission of infection at Belo Horizonte city.